Sum of Second Order Linear PDEs

Arkuski
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Suppose we have two multivariate functions, u_{1}(x,t) and u_{2}(x,t). These functions are solutions to second-order linear equations, which can be written as follows:

Au_{xx}+Bu_{xy}+Cu_{yy}+Du_{x}+Eu_{y}+Fu=G

Each of the coefficients are of the form A(x,y). Now, the linearity of these equations are undermined when any of the derivatives are altered by something other than their coefficients (a square, multiplied by another derivative, etc). Let's suppose that the previous linear model applies to u_{1}(x,t) and u_{1}(x,t) has the following format:

Hu_{xx}+Iu_{xy}+Ju_{yy}+Ku_{x}+Lu_{y}+Mu=N

The question is to determine whether u_{1}(x,t)+u_{2}(x,t) is also a second degree linear PDE. If we were to compute this, we would find that the derivative of the sum would be the sum of the derivatives (i.e. \frac{\partial}{\partial x}=u_{1_{x}}+u_{2_{x}}. However, in the long sum of the terms, the derivatives appear as a linear combination, so for example, our \frac{\partial}{\partial x} term appears as Du_{1_{x}}+Ku_{2_{x}}. Would the sum thus constitute as being non-linear?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you define ##v=u_{1}+u_{2}##, then by the linearity of differentiation, ##v## satisfies the PDE
$$(A+H)v_{xx}+(B+I)v_{xy}+(C+J)v_{yy}+(D+K)v_{x}+(E+L)v_{y}+(F+M)v=G+N.$$
This is linear in ##v##. If I understand you correctly, this is what you're asking.
 
Ackbeet said:
If you define ##v=u_{1}+u_{2}##, then by the linearity of differentiation, ##v## satisfies the PDE
$$(A+H)v_{xx}+(B+I)v_{xy}+(C+J)v_{yy}+(D+K)v_{x}+(E+L)v_{y}+(F+M)v=G+N.$$
This is linear in ##v##. If I understand you correctly, this is what you're asking.

I should have been more clear. I meant that the second equation would have variables w_{xx} and so forth. This way, A+H could not reasonably be distributed as you have them.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top